OTOH, continually changing the subject (as is a particularly common tactic these days, in regard to Kremlin shenanigans, actual or alleged) and never addressing

OTOH, continually changing the subject (as is a particularly common tactic these days, in regard to Kremlin shenanigans, actual or alleged) and never addressing the facts at hand is n't exactly very helpful, either. Some of us are perfectly aware of the "big picture", thank you very much, and would just like to sort out the actual facts of what appears to have happened in this particular situation. If someone has e.g. punched 100 people, that someone doesn't get to look astonished and outraged when someone 1/10th their weight merely slaps them. In general, the whole "But Ma, he hit me worse!" line of thinking isn't very useful in understanding history and geopolitics. A better analogy to use would be perhaps the case of a hard-core alcoholic who feels livid and indignant when called on his drunken behavior by the local neighborhood crackhead. Which is of course, to some extent, hypocritical (even though the two drugs and their dependence syndromes are rather different) -- but also, in regard to the alcoholic's own situation, entirely irrelevant. Getting back to the original article: at least there's clear evidence now that Podesta's account subjected to (and fell for) a phishing attack; which makes it more likely that the emails were in fact stolen (and not "leaked from the inside", as some have claimed).